Photoshop vs. history

All the photojournalists I know and work with are adamant about one thing: You don’t manipulate photos in a way that changes the facts of what’s recorded at that unique moment in time.

Most people, however, don’t ascribe to such a philosophy. Yes, photos are historical records — but the history they record is subject to change, and Photoshopping. The New York Times examines how “updating” old photos to reflect one’s current situation and emotional reality is growing in popularity, as the tools to do it became cheaper, simpler and more accessible:

As image-editing software grows in sophistication and ubiquity, alterations go far beyond removing red-eye and whitening teeth. They include substituting head shots to achieve the best combination of smiles, deleting problematic personalities or adding family members who were unable to attend important events, performing virtual liposuction or hair restoration, even reanimating the dead. Revisionist history, it seems, can be practiced by just about anyone.

As people fiddle with the photos in their scrapbooks, the tug of emotion and vanity can win out over the objective truth. And in some cases, it can even alter memories — Cousin Andy was at the wedding, right?

In an age of digital manipulation, many people believe that snapshots and family photos need no longer stand as a definitive record of what was, but instead, of what they wish it was.

It sounds like another reprise of the old battle between facts and what some might call “essential truth.”

Taking a step back, it’s intriguing — and perhaps just a tad scary — to contemplate the possibility that many of the tangible artifacts our civilization leaves behind may prove to be, well, lies. I wonder what future historians and archaeologists will make of them. Perhaps they’ll dub this the Age of Digital Delusions …